ILNews

Opinion regarding insurance company considers definition of ‘ever’

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana Court of Appeals panel was split in an opinion released today that considered the definition of “ever” on a home insurance application when it came to whether the homeowners insurance coverage was ever “declined, cancelled, or non-renewed.”

While the majority opinion found that “ever” should include all insurers who may have cancelled the plaintiffs’ coverage, a dissenting judge wrote that in this case, “ever” should have only included the cancellations by the defendant insurance company.

In Allied Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Linda Good and Randall Good, No. 85A04-0905-CV-240, Linda and Randall Good had a fire March 16, 2003, that destroyed their home and all of its contents.

Only Linda’s name was on the policy she had with the insurance company. The policy was to last one year, beginning July 2, 2002. The insurance company had neither denied nor paid their claims regarding the fire pending an ongoing investigation concerning the fire’s cause. Linda sued March 9, 2004, for breach of contract based on the non-payment of the claim.

Two trials took place. The first trial was in December 2008, which ended in a mistrial. The second trial in January 2009 was bifurcated to address Linda’s breach of contract claim, to address Allied’s third-party claims against Randall that he made false statements about the fire, and to address Allied’s counterclaims against Linda.

Among Allied’s counterclaims were that Linda misrepresented her insurance cancellation history on the application. If the insurance company had known her true cancellation history, Allied claimed, the company would have either denied her coverage or required a higher premium for the coverage.

After hearing the evidence in the January 2009 trial, the court entered a directed verdict for the Goods. The jury awarded slightly more than $1 million in damages to Linda.

However, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the trial court, finding that because Linda acknowledged that at least one and possibly three insurance companies had cancelled policies held by Linda and Randall, she had indeed misrepresented her cancellation history on the application when she claimed she was never denied coverage.

Linda claimed that because the way the form was worded, she interpreted it to mean whether she was ever denied coverage by Allied, and therefore didn’t include her cancellations from other insurance companies.

The Court of Appeals found that this misrepresentation was material in this case.

“A misrepresentation on an application for an insurance policy is ‘material’ if the fact misrepresented, had it been known to the insurer, would have reasonably entered into and influenced the insurer‘s decision whether to issue a policy or to charge a higher premium,” wrote Judge Melissa S. May for the majority.

However, in a footnote the court clarified this definition by adding, “Our opinion … should not, and cannot, be read to encourage, or even permit, parties to comb through insurance applications in hopes of finding any false statement in an effort to reduce premiums or avoid paying benefits. Only a ‘material’ false representation could permit either result.”

Because of these findings, Judge May wrote, “the trial court erred by denying Allied’s motion for summary judgment. We reverse and remand for entry of judgment for Allied on all counts.”

However, while Judge Michael P. Barnes concurred, Judge L. Mark Bailey wrote a 9-page dissent.

Including an image of the application field in question, he wrote the application field about past insurance cancellations was unclear as to whether “ever” included all insurance companies or just Allied.

“Taking ‘ever’ out of its context seems to me to disregard how a reasonable person could construe the question,” he wrote. “Reading the form as presented above, a reasonable person could indeed interpret the item about prior cancellations as pertaining to the current insurer – particularly since the section heading is ‘INSURANCE COVERAGE,’ not ‘Prior Insurance Coverage,’ ‘Coverage History,’ or the like.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT